Radio Metaphor Argument

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Radio Metaphor Argument

Frankly, I think you are flogging the metaphor to death here. It is quite possible to theorize on a situation where it is not possible to distinguish between a radio and a human, in the sense that you cannot determine that one is a machine and one is a living being, but it really does not tell us anything.

Merely flogging, more like making a marionette out of the poor thing and dancing it around on a stage.
And it is not just a theorhetical situation, some of us have maintained that a machine which exhibits the behavior of life is alive.

All it boils down to is the self-evident statement that: If consciousness is something we cannot understand or distinguish from a biological process, then we cannot know if it is a biological process or not.

Which is why I abuseed the metaphor, I feel that consiousness is a dependant phenomena of biology.
So how can the aliens decide which is which?


For the radio metaphor to be useful, IMHO we must use the premise that the aliens are cabable of understanding approximately the same things as humans, but that they for some reason have never discovered radio waves.

- And in that case, it would be possible for them to find out by observation that the radio depends on an outside source for the signals it emits (even without taking it apart). Not only could they interfere with the signals by shielding it, but they would be able to generate signals that were received by the radio.

That is assuming that the aliens reason the way humans do, they could assume that they have offended the radio, made it displeased when it stops making the sound. They may conclude that the radio doesn't like metal bowls which is why it stops singing when placed under a metal bowl.
If they have a way to produce a spark and can observe the connection between the spark and the static pop on the radio, then they might realize that the radio is depndant on an outside source of a signal.
Or they may assume that the spark just makes the radio say 'ouch'.


Take this analogy to study of the brain, we have not, even after quite detailed studies, found any dependence on external signals other than the information reaching us through our senses, nor have we been able to transmit to the mind, except through the same senses. .... I am here excluding various paranormal claims.

Hans

I quite agree, no evidence for life after death or any of the cool stuff that goes along with immaterialism.

 

[Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Radio Metaphor Argument

For the radio metaphor to be useful, IMHO we must use the premise that the aliens are cabable of understanding approximately the same things as humans, but that they for some reason have never discovered radio waves.

Well roughly equivalent to humans pre 1847. For some reason we never discovered them until then.

Oh, and you get bonus points for providing an object lesson that answers your own question.

why do they need to be aliens, btw?

(I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but I was sincerely surprised given my earlier response to your query.)

It's a hypothetical. To judge a hypothetical we first need to assume that the premise is true.

For sake of argument let's assume that they haven't discovered radio waves yet.

- And in that case, it would be possible for them to find out by observation that the radio depends on an outside source for the signals it emits (even without taking it apart).

"Possible", yes but it makes assumptions and doesn't really tell us about the quality of the original argument which is "what can we deduce about changes in structure precipitating changes in behavior".

Is it fair to say that absent additional information the answer to the above is nothing?

Not only could they interfere with the signals by shielding it, but they would be able to generate signals that were received by the radio.

I don't understand, how would they generate signals.

Take this analogy to study of the brain, we have not, even after quite detailed studies, found any dependence on external signals other than the information reaching us through our senses, nor have we been able to transmit to the mind, except through the same senses. .... I am here excluding various paranormal claims.

I should be clear here.

1. No claim is made by this hypothetical that human behavior is dependant on external signals that are of a sufficient distance from the brain that a barrier could be placed between them. Only that changes in physical structure do not prove (established [as true] with a very high probability) that the structure is the sole creator of behavior.

2. No claim is made by this hypothetical that the brain is a receiver capable of picking up external signals that are of a significant distance from the brain. Hypothetically the source of the signals could reside in the same approximate area as the brain.

3. Finally, while the term "materialism" is used it is only used as it pertains to the physical structure of the multi celled organ known as the brain and the creation of human behavior. The hypothetical does not assume "paranormal" only the possibility of some force separate from the "brain". This heretofore unknown force could very well be just as physical as time or space. In which case the term "materialism" would apply.

 

[Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Radio Metaphor Argument

I think that Jack has entertained a fair amount of my lampooning the original premise.

Absolutely!

 

[uruk]

I just think the radio analogy is flawed. Representing consciousness as radio waves tramitted from an external source
makes the assumption that conciousness is generated "somewhere" else, and not inherent to the body (i.e. brain).

Why not a use a synthesizer as an analogy. The sounds are genereated by the device by the various electronic components. An alien race would then be able to study the device and discover the source of the sounds.


To Diogenes: Ya, I know, I was just being a weenie.

 

[Jack]

I just think the radio analogy is flawed. Representing consciousness as radio waves tramitted from an external source makes the assumption that conciousness is generated "somewhere" else, and not inherent to the body (i.e. brain).

Why not a use a synthesizer as an analogy. The sounds are genereated by the device by the various electronic components. An alien race would then be able to study the device and discover the source of the sounds.

The radio as a metaphor for the brain is flawed if you make the assumption that consciousness is inherent to the body.

Your synthesizer is a much better analogy based upon that assumption. Unfortunately this has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions at hand.

The end purpose of the metaphor has nothing really to do with aliens, consciousness or even materialism. It is only to call into question the validity of the original argument about changes in structure causing changes in behavior.

1. Does a physical change to a structure that results in changes to the behavior of that structure demonstrate that the only source of the behavior is said physical structure?
   
2. Assume that aliens who had no knowledge of radio waves discovered a radio and observed a change in behavior due to a change in the structure of the radio. Should the aliens assume that the physical change to the structure that resulted in change in behavior demonstrate that the radio is the only source of the behavior?
   [/list=1]
   The synthesizer metaphor does nothing to further our understanding of these questions.
   
   Edited to add, the validity or lack therof of the original argument does not prove or disprove materialism and is not the purpose of my argument.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think the radio analogy is useful mainly as a cautionary tale that rational thought, no matter how well practiced, is vulnerable to incomplete information. The rational conclusion (tentative, as always) is that the radio produces the sound on its own. As we know, the radio does in fact require the external signal, but until that information is available to the aliens, it is not raional to believe so.

Turn the analogy around as the portable mp3 player analogy, and it illustrates another point. If we have the same two factions of aliens (the Innate Soundists and the External Signalists, let call them) it is the Innate Soundists who will be correct this time. We know that no matter how long an external signal is looked for, none will be found. If we give the aliens centuries to search for them, the lesson becomes: perhaps if you've searched for something for centuries and never found it, it does not exist.

But perhaps not, of course.

 

[Jack]

I think the radio analogy is useful mainly as a cautionary tale that rational thought, no matter how well practiced, is vulnerable to incomplete information. The rational conclusion (tentative, as always) is that the radio produces the sound on its own. As we know, the radio does in fact require the external signal, but until that information is available to the aliens, it is not raional to believe so.

Turn the analogy around as the portable mp3 player analogy, and it illustrates another point. If we have the same two factions of aliens (the Innate Soundists and the External Signalists, let call them) it is the Innate Soundists who will be correct this time. We know that no matter how long an external signal is looked for, none will be found. If we give the aliens centuries to search for them, the lesson becomes: perhaps if you've searched for something for centuries and never found it, it does not exist.

But perhaps not, of course.

Marquis,

Great responses. Sorry I did not respond to your first post.

"...the Innate Soundists and the External Signalists, let call them."

I like your labels.

"...it is not rational to believe so."

The metaphor does not provide for something analogous to "the hard problem of consciousness."

[withdrawn] Of course materialists dismiss such a notion. But assuming that there was something that was analogous, would it still be irrational? [/withdrawn]

Edited to add, that after thinking of the MP3 vs Radio I don't think the metaphore can sustain such an analogy. It's a stretch that just wont fly IMO.

Again, never mind.

 

[Jack]

I think the radio analogy is useful mainly as a cautionary tale that rational thought, no matter how well practiced, is vulnerable to incomplete information. The rational conclusion (tentative, as always) is that the radio produces the sound on its own. As we know, the radio does in fact require the external signal, but until that information is available to the aliens, it is not raional to believe so.

Turn the analogy around as the portable mp3 player analogy, and it illustrates another point. If we have the same two factions of aliens (the Innate Soundists and the External Signalists, let call them) it is the Innate Soundists who will be correct this time. We know that no matter how long an external signal is looked for, none will be found. If we give the aliens centuries to search for them, the lesson becomes: perhaps if you've searched for something for centuries and never found it, it does not exist.

But perhaps not, of course.

I know that I dismissed the synthizer analogy earlier but I like the idea of interchanging the two.

1. The device produces sound by both external and internal means.

2. The device produces sound without any external means.

Again, the only correct assumption is that both are possible.

The strength of the original argument lies in the depth of our knowledge of the brain. The more we know about the brain and the physical world the more we can say with a certainty that physical changes to the brain that causes changes in behavior demonstrate materialism.

The weakness of my counter argument is that lack of knowledge on the part of the aliens. The greater the understanding on the part of the aliens of the MP3 player or the radio, the more certain they are in their assessment of the device.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Jack
Sorry I did not respond to your first post.

No worries.

"...it is not rational to believe so."

The metaphor does not provide for something analogous to "the hard problem of consciousness."

[withdrawn] Of course materialists dismiss such a notion. But assuming that there was something that was analogous, would it still be irrational? [/withdrawn]

Edited to add, that after thinking of the MP3 vs Radio I don't think the metaphore can sustain such an analogy. It's a stretch that just wont fly IMO.

Again, never mind.

Heh, you withdrew that on my way to reply, so I preemptively withdraw my response.

I think the metaphor works really well if we forget any analogies it may or may not have to consciousness (yes, I know that's why it was originally formulated; I'm exapting it) and focus on what it can tell us about the powers and limitations of rational thought. It is something we need to be reminded of from time to time, lest we become dogmatic about our opinions.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Jack
1. The device produces sound by both external and internal means.

2. The device produces sound without any external means.

Again, the only correct assumption is that both are possible.

I agree it is rational to admit both possibilities, but I think it is rational to provisionally accept (2), while not denying the possibility of (1), by using Occam.

The greater the understanding on the part of the aliens of the MP3 player or the radio, the more certain they are in their assessment of the device.

Precisely.

To drag back in the consciouness problem I've been trying to disengage from the metaphor, what this means for us in brain/mind studies is that we should provisionally accept the premise that the brain produces the mind and that they are not separate, and continue to study the brain so our knowledge becomes more and more complete (diminishing the chance for error in our rational thought). And, should someone come along and show us the external signal (or the soul, or whatever you want to call it), we should say "Hey, cool, let us rethink."

 

[Jack]

To drag back in the consciouness problem I've been trying to disengage from the metaphor, what this means for us in brain/mind studies is that we should provisionally accept the premise that the brain produces the mind and that they are not separate, and continue to study the brain so our knowledge becomes more and more complete (diminishing the chance for error in our rational thought). And, should someone come along and show us the external signal (or the soul, or whatever you want to call it), we should say "Hey, cool, let us rethink."

Agreed.

RandFan

This will be my last post using my son's username. In the future if I decide to post I will ask Hal to reinstate my old username "RandFan" or get another name.

My thanks to everyone who gave a response. Special thanks to Marquis and Dancing David for bringing different perspectives.

RandFan

 

[Dancing David]

Hey there is some life in the old thing yet!

There was a good reason that I wanted to add more humans and more radios. I think that there is almost no other way for the debate to be resolved between the Animists and the Mechanists amongst the aliens. To have the technology that would allow them to undetsand the printed circut board and all the miniature components would seem , hard to follow. Say then that these are people who haven't even discovered agriculture. I think that it is going to be a major strech for them to even consider the radio as a construct and not something alive. But say one of the aliens has got aglimmer of what a machine is and after a huge religous battle, there are mechanists amongst the aliens.
They immedeatly split into the Inate Soundists and the External Signalsist, although some of course revert to External Animists!

How can a technologicaly inelegant society even begin to have a debate that resolves the issues presented, what experiments can they do assuming that they have the scientific method.


More later.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Say then that these are people who haven't even discovered agriculture. I think that it is going to be a major strech for them to even consider the radio as a construct and not something alive.

I'm not as certain that the aliens would find the radio to be a living thing. I seem to recall reading about experiments where babies (in the under 12 months range; the closest thing we really have to primitive people to work on) seem to be rather good at placing things into living or non-living categories based on reactions. They can easily be fooled by things that are self-locomotive, apparently using locomotion as a main criterion for life. Obviously not 100% foolproof, but I think it lends weight to the idea that the aliens won't be duped into thinking they've encountered a new form of life.*

I will grant they may have no concept of how such an item could be constructed. Assuming they could recognize that there was some patterning to the sounds, they may very well take it to be some form of conduit to the gods, which would clear up for them the 'who could possibly make something so weird?' question.

*I'll return to post my source on this for sure when I find it. (have to get home first) Seems to me Pinker mentions the experiments in The Blank Slate

 

[Loki]

Hi RandFan,

No comment to make (at this time) other than to say "nice to see you again..."

 

[Dancing David]

By adding extra radios I think that the aliens would have more of a chance to figure out the signal nature of the radio. But maybe not, the Animists will always be able counter the argument.

Mech: The radios produce the same sounds even from different location.
Anin: Proof of the universal nature of soul.

Mech: There appears to be a relationship between the distance bewteen a spark and the distance to the radio and the sound that the radio makes.
Anim: That is just because it hurts them less.

The only resolution I can see is that by learning that the radios are not making the station sound in certain locations, they can then find that the same effect applies to the spark effect. In that they can find that the spark effect is also blocked by the metal bowl.

Previously the Animists had said that the radio stopped singing under the bowl because it was sad. And since they also said that the spark caused the radio pain, this is a contradiction because while the bowl causes the radio to stop singing it also causes the radio to stop saying ouch.

Is there a counter to this for the Animists, they were able to counter the fact that all the radios sang the same song regardless of position.

What about the spark evidence? Can the aliens now deduce that the source of the singing is external to the radio?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What about the spark evidence? Can the aliens now deduce that the source of the singing is external to the radio?

Nope..

All they can deduce is that sparks interfere with the radio and that the bowl blocks the sparks..

The only way they can prove that the music comes from an outside source, is to locate the source, eliminate or alter it and observe the effect on the radio..

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Say then that these are people who haven't even discovered agriculture. I think that it is going to be a major strech for them to even consider the radio as a construct and not something alive.

I lent the book I think my source is in to a friend, so my reply may be later than I thought. But it may be unnecessary, as after further reflection, I'm beginning to think you may be right here.

It is hard, when postulating what an alien culture would do with one of our electronic devices, not to bring along our human prejudices. I'm trying not to do so, but the obviousness of its artifact status is one that I managed to bring along for the ride. I'll think some more this weekend before posting anything else, lest it fade into incoherency.